Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of battlecruisers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of battlecruisers[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Yep, that's right, this day has finally come. It's been a few years in the making, and involved at least a half-dozen editors, but the battlecruiser project is nearing completion. The format of the list differs somewhat from the national battlecruiser lists, in that it does not have textual sections with each class, as I feel it would cause too much duplication of content. In any case, I look forward in working with reviewers to ensure this article meets MILHIST standards. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - Do list class articles get reviewed for A class? (Not really a regular at this project). I'd expect this to go to FL eventually, not FA, and for lists I have generally only considered two classes: L and FL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, lists are assessed for A-class - see the diagram here. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, interesting. Expect a review from me sometime today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • The lede should mention the only post-war BC class, the Stalingrads.
    • Good call, I knew I was forgetting something.
  • More pics would be nice, perhaps between each national section?
    • I'm not sure what you mean on placement. Like a gallery at the end of each section?
      • I was thinking that one picture at the beginning of each national section should suffice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many conversions are redundant and should probably be removed. Generally, I prefer conversions to 3 significant digits, so 406 mm for 16-inch guns, not 410. This is really only an issue for those countries that use metric like the Germans and the French, but still...
  • Make sure that the links for terms like steam turbine and knots are in the first entry.
  • You might add a section on roles to the lede if you don't think that it's redundant with the type article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the lead is rather long as it is, I'd prefer to keep it where it's at. The conversions should all be fixed, let me know if there's anything I missed. Thanks for the review. Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Conversions for the Soviet and American ships are redundant. Don't forget to link steam turbine and knot in the first entry. There are links later down, so just move them around.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, should be all taken care of now. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Crisco 1492
  • The #Great Britain table is jutting out about 90 pixels for me (on 1024x600). The others are fine
  • Hmm, it looks fine to me, but I did find one bit of code that was missing from the end of the template - see if that did it.
  • I'm guessing they're ok, since both images made it through FACs for their respective articles without comment. Thanks for the nbsp-es, I'm surprised we didn't trip each other up! Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take a look when I get home; my work computer is a lot bigger. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the markup of the tables and just removed a lot of nbsp from the GB table, and now it plays better on narrow displays. Some should prolly go back, but this sort of table is rather designed for large displays, which is an accessibility issue. There are a lot of netbook and mobile devices out there. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had checked the refs from the German list when you identified the problem there, and confirmed that everything was correct on the 55/57 issue (I probably didn't tell you at the time), so the refs should be fine here as well. Parsecboy (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the German list, it seemed reasonable to tweak it as I did; thanks for the check. On this page, I just fixed the obvious one, but the others here don't seem obvious. The five p55 should be reviewed and possibly a few nudged to p57. I'll have another looksee when I'm less tired. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently two definitions of a named ref:

  • <ref name="G55">Gröner, p. 55</ref>
  • <ref name="G55">Gröner, p. 57</ref>

Fixing the second is pretty obvious. What's not so, are the five uses of

  • <ref name="G55" />

They are scattered above and below the definitions in the Germany section. As things are, they are all showing as p. 55 and p. 57 is not showing at all. This problem seems to have originated in List of battlecruisers of Germany, which I've worked on, fixing it here. These pages should both be checked against the source. Once tweaked, I'll do the {sfn}-thing on this page, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/List_of_battlecruisers&oldid=501008105"